The conviction of a public servant for bribery requires proof of both demand and acceptance of illegal gratification under sections 7 and 13 of the Prevention of Corruption Act.

JUDGMENT :

A. Badharudeen, J.

1. This criminal appeal has been filed under Section 374 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as 'Cr.P.C.' for short), by the sole accused in C.C.No.27/2005 on the files of the Enquiry Commissioner and Special Judge, Thiruvananthapuram.

2. Heard the learned senior counsel appearing for the appellant/accused as well as the learned Special Public Prosecutor in detail. Perused the trial court records.

3. In this case, the prosecution alleges commission of offences punishable under Sections 7 and 13(2) r/w Section 13 (1)(d) of the Prevention and Corruption Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as 'PC Act, 1988' for short) by the accused. The specific allegation is that the accused, who was working as Assistant Public Prosecutor attached to Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Varkkala, and as such a public servant conducted prosecution in C.C.No.536/1999 of Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Varkkala which was a case charged sheeted alleging commission of offence under Section 326 of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as 'IPC' for short) by the accused therein, where the mother of the defacto complainant – PW1 was the injured. It is alleged that for proper conduct of the prosecution, the accused demanded an amount of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees five thousand only) as gratification other than legal remuneration from PW1, the defacto complainant, on 20.09.2002 at her office in Varkkala. The said amount was demanded as a motive or reward for performing an official act relating to the proper conduct of the prosecution. PW1 immediately complained the said matter to the Inspector General of Police, which was forwarded to the Superintendent of Police and subsequently to PW7, the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Vigilance and Anti- Corruption Bureau, Thiruvananthapuram Unit. A trap was arranged by PW7 in the presence of PW2 and CW3, the two Tahsildars of the said Department. In pursuance of the said demand on 20.09.2002, accused again made demand and accepted an amount of Rs.500/- (Rupees five hundred only) at 10.30 am on 27.09.2002 at her office towards the part payment of the above amount demanded. Thus, by corrupt or illegal means, the accused, for herself, by abusing her position as public servant, obtained pecuniary advantage to the extent of Rs.500/- and thereby committed the above offences.

4. On getting the final report filed after investigation, the Special Court took cognizance of the offences and proceeded with the matter. During trial, PW1 to PW7 were examined, Exhibits P1 to P14 and MO1 to MO5 were marked on the side of the prosecution. On the side of the defence, DW1 was examined and Exts.D1 to D6 were marked.

5. On evaluation of the evidence after hearing both sides, the learned Special Judge found that the accused committed offences punishable under Sections 7 and 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of the PC Act, 1988 and accordingly, she was convicted and sentenced as under:

“For the conviction entered against the accused for the offence under S.7 of the PC Act, 1988, she is sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years and in addition, she shall pay a fine of Rs.2,000/- (Rupees Two Thousand only) and in default of payment of fine, she shall undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of four months and for conviction entered against the accused for the offence under S.13(2)r/w 13(1)(d) of the P